Leveraging engineering B.E. after pivoting to Physics - impossible?

[Pirx]

Hello, fellow users of the Forum. Excuse my English, as I'm writing in a hurry.

What I'm going to describe here is mostly another case of a (potential) Physics after Engineering Syndrome. I'm aware that this is an neverending topic on the Forum and have read a lot of posts on this subject before writing one myself. I'd be glad to see input from people who became physicists by profession (that is, have physics-related jobs), especially those who remained in academia, but also any other insight will be valuable.

Let's say that the author of this post has a very, very bad case of being in two minds about his studies; and that he is undecided enough that he is willing to return for a second Bachelors in physics after completing his BSc. in Aerospace Eng. (at 23), just to see 1. which career is right 2. if, by any chance, his mental faculties won't restrict him to undergrad physics, which as we know is not the right level to pursue academia (I do not intend to poke at people who are content with just having a BSc. in Physics. This is just what I've observed about natural sciences academia: PhD or nothing).

I am aware that this is a highly inefficient way of doing it. However, I've quietly dreamed of doing physics for a living since early high school. I chose engineering because I thought that I would be happy doing more reality-oriented problem solving. Also job security, the usual spiel. You could write this out, too, most likely. As time went on, I've come to realize that engineering seems very intellectually understimulating (there's a lot of material to learn in AE, but it strikes me as conceptually easy... very easy, even) and has, little to do with bona fide problem solving (instead of reproducing standardized solutions). So this detour would be my last shot at getting the main prize - of being a physicist in a country with very underfunded (thus with few vacancies) science sectors.

Aside for sequentially obtaining a second Bachelors, my only other option would be throwing in the towel after 2/3.5 years in AeE (I am in Europe, no financial loss would occur) and launching myself into Physics at 21. As a side note: doing a Masters in Physics after engineering, especially AE, is impossible in my country and/or would come with such large differences in background that no one would accept me for a PhD. I've researched this thoroughly.

Don't worry, I'm not one of those types who read a single PopSci book in HS and have decided to become a string theorist-astrophysicist-whatever on a whim. You can be brutal with me. I know that the actual 'hot thing' in modern physics is CMP, AMO, etc., that more money lies in experimental and my chances of ending up as a programmer in the business sector would be moderate to high. Which is also why my original idea was to secure myself with an engineering degree. I try to get good grades and be active in extra-curricular clubs (where I seem mostly to be drawn to theoretical work), but the thought of going into physics one day haunts me relentlessly. I'm afraid I would deeply regret not even trying to do pure sciences while I'm still young.

My main question is: if I were to go into Physics after getting an engineering degree beforehand, would I be able to market this to academics (I imagine theoretical physicists would deem this background useless, and I don't blame them but I'm thinking about experimentalists) as a positive thing instead of being held back by the fact that I'm older than my peers (23 starting BSc., then 26 when finishing my Masters, 28 when starting a PhD)? Do institutions in Europe care about starting their career in Physics with such a large postponement? I know ageism is officially illegal but I also know that the world, especially academia, is not a just place, and universities will always choose a younger candidate over an older one with the same credentials - so I'd like to hear just how bad it really is.

I know the usual concerns with staying in school so long. I do not want to start a family and as long as I'm in my country, education is free. So my only worry, really, is jeopardizing my CV as a potential physicist (too old, weird background, undecided), should I like Physics more than AE. This is the reason I'm writing this post.

Thank you for reading this (I imagine very meandering) post and would be grateful to get your insight.

Edit: I'm sorry, something has short-circuited in my brain. After Aerospace you get a BE., obviously.

 

[mad mathematician]

Well if Dirac started in Engineering and then switched to Physics then I guess it's possible.
In the end, you'd be judged by your publish or perish quality work.

 

[Pirx]

Well if Dirac started in Engineering and then switched to Physics then I guess it's possible.
In the end, you'd be judged by your publish or perish quality work.

Thanks, but I'm afraid it's somewhat different when you're at Dirac-level intelligence (and he got his first degree at 19, which is very young). It's still a nice thing to think about, though.
Would you like to elaborate on how important the publish-or-perish thing is in relation to other factors (age, school prestige perhaps) in (physics, I assume) academia?

 

[mad mathematician]

Thanks, but I'm afraid it's somewhat different when you're at Dirac-level intelligence (and he got his first degree at 19, which is very young). It's still a nice thing to think about, though.
Would you like to elaborate on how important the publish-or-perish thing is in relation to other factors (age, school prestige perhaps) in (physics, I assume) academia?

You should ask those prof.s here.
It's all about p.o.p, unless you want to settle in academia for the teaching jobs only.
There are of course those adjunct teachers jobs...

 

[Choppy]

I think you're worrying way too much about age at the moment.
No one cares whether you're 22 or 26 when you start your PhD. If anything, in my experience, a few extra years of maturity can work to your advantage.
Age can start to be an issue once you get into your thirties, mostly for your own sake though. Most people in their thirties are starting to think about settling into long-term relationships (i.e. marriage), children, and other long term obligations (i.e. mortgages), etc. This can be tough to balance with graduate school and post-doctoral work (low wages, long hours, uncertainty of position in the long term). But if you (and any partner/family that are in play) are willing to accept that, then it shouldn't be too much of an obstacle. What matters is how qualified you are when you apply--that you have the necessary background, you've been successful academically, you have some research experience, you've done enough research to know what you're getting into, etc.
The other common point when it comes to your age is that it's not really something you can do much about. If you're 26 and applying for a PhD, it's not like you can turn back the clock and apply at 22 instead. All you can do is move ahead from where you're at.
I can't say whether also having a BEng will be helpful or not. Some may see it as a plus depending on the specific skill set you bring to the table. It's unlikely to be any kind of hinderance though.

 

[Pirx]

I guess it's the idea of being N years ahead or behind people my age that was worrying me. It's helpful to see input from someone who actually went the whole route. Thanks a lot for the insight.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well if Dirac started in Engineering and then switched to Physics

And he's been dead half a century. Ancient examples are of little help.

 

[marcusl]

I wonder if you just haven't gotten far enough into your studies if you find it simple and obvious. Fluid flow over wings and the Navier-Stokes equations, turbulence, combustion science, avionics and communications, navigation, control theory, and many other fields fall under the aerospace engineering umbrella. Any one of them can lead you into a very deep area of investigation and a lifetime career.

 

[Pirx]

I wonder if you just haven't gotten far enough into your studies if you find it simple and obvious. Fluid flow over wings and the Navier-Stokes equations, turbulence, combustion science, avionics and communications, navigation, control theory, and many other fields fall under the aerospace engineering umbrella. Any one of them can lead you into a very deep area of investigation and a lifetime career.

In hindsight I realize I may have phrased some things in a tone that could possibly sound condescending, which was obviously not my intention - I am aware that AE has some very complicated subfields, and it has its own geniuses just as physics does.
I am beginning my 2nd year, which is said to be the hardest of all. This is also when Aerospace majors in my country are phased into controls, fluid mechanics, finish off their Calculus and structural mechanics and also do a lot of aeronautical (space eng. comes later) stuff.
My problem is that I find the theoretical backdrop to be explained in an extremely hand-wavy, compact way and then your (the Student's) job is to finesse extremely fast but schematic problem-solving. I find it to be a very frustrating, disappointing way of introducing - truth be told - beautiful areas of of physics and mathematics, and can't help but feel that I don't really care about the applications and would be content to focus on the strict formulation and derivation of the theory.
Perhaps things will change later on, but right know this really makes me doubt if I'll be OK with doing the applied part for the rest of my career. I know people say that the job's the conceptually easy part (compared to the crunch) after a rather soul-crushing education but this doesn't cheer me up either.

 

[mad mathematician]

And he's been dead half a century. Ancient examples are of little help.

Yes. I agree.
I still don't understand why did I learn all this Newtonian and Maxwellian physics if it's ancient... and wrong.

 

[mad mathematician]

But I enjoy the math behind the wrong physics... :-D

 

[erobz]

As time went on, I've come to realize that engineering seems very intellectually understimulating (there's a lot of material to learn in AE, but it strikes me as conceptually easy... very easy, even) and has, little to do with bona fide problem solving (instead of reproducing standardized solutions). So this detour would be my last shot at getting the main prize - of being a physicist in a country with very underfunded (thus with few vacancies) science sectors.

Fair assessment. Do you mind trying your hand at a problem. I'd like some info on how to tackle it within the standard framework of fluid mechanics. It seemingly simplistic on its face, and maybe it is.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/disc-lifted-by-pressurized-air-in-a-vertical-tube.1066629/

 

[marcusl]

In hindsight I realize I may have phrased some things in a tone that could possibly sound condescending, which was obviously not my intention - I am aware that AE has some very complicated subfields, and it has its own geniuses just as physics does.
I am beginning my 2nd year, which is said to be the hardest of all. This is also when Aerospace majors in my country are phased into controls, fluid mechanics, finish off their Calculus and structural mechanics and also do a lot of aeronautical (space eng. comes later) stuff.
My problem is that I find the theoretical backdrop to be explained in an extremely hand-wavy, compact way and then your (the Student's) job is to finesse extremely fast but schematic problem-solving. I find it to be a very frustrating, disappointing way of introducing - truth be told - beautiful areas of of physics and mathematics, and can't help but feel that I don't really care about the applications and would be content to focus on the strict formulation and derivation of the theory.
Perhaps things will change later on, but right know this really makes me doubt if I'll be OK with doing the applied part for the rest of my career. I know people say that the job's the conceptually easy part (compared to the crunch) after a rather soul-crushing education but this doesn't cheer me up either.

Your mind is clearly made up, and it seems it was made up before your first post. (Which makes me wonder why you asked for advice in the first place.) You should switch to physics at the first opportunity. You aren’t and won’t be happy in engineering. (Whether you’ll be happy in physics remains to be seen.) Good luck in your future studies! We’ll be here to answer homework questions if you have any.

 

[Pirx]

Your mind is clearly made up, and it seems it was made up before your first post. (Which makes me wonder why you asked for advice in the first place.) You should switch to physics at the first opportunity. You aren’t and won’t be happy in engineering. (Whether you’ll be happy in physics remains to be seen.) Good luck in your future studies! We’ll be here to answer homework questions if you have any.

I appreciate your opinion, and thank you for the kind words. I can see how my posts can sound very insistent on one thing, but they were written out of genuine confusion, not demand for instant affirmation. After all, an engineering undergrad's favorite pastime is complaining about how they hate their major (or at least that's what I've encountered. Might be a cultural thing.) I have almost an entire academic year ahead of me before the universities will begin to accept undergrad applicants again, so I guess I'll have plenty of time to do soul-searching. Regardless of the outcome, I'm very glad that you've responded.

 

[CrysPhys]

OP: As long as you're planning to complete a second bachelor's in physics, your first bachelor's in aerospace engineering shouldn't hurt you. In fact, if you are planning on pursuing a PhD program in experimental physics, the engineering background should be advantageous, especially if your project involves design and construction of novel apparatus.

Starting the PhD program a few years later per se should not be detrimental. As one isolated data point, among the students in my entering PhD physics program in the US was a woman who had completed her bachelor's in physics ~7 yrs earlier. She had then put her career plans on hold to become a full-time mommy to two kids. She completed her PhD program, became a university professor, and then later became a high-level director of a national lab (among other positions). So it can be done.

Whether you should pursue a PhD in physics depends on your abilities and the opportunities available to you in your country (I see that you've started a new thread on that subject). My experience is limited to the US. Here is my standing caveat for posters in your scenario:

* With perhaps an outlier or two, a PhD in Physics is no guarantee of a long-term career in physics (or even physics-related) research. Others have discussed the minuscule opportunities for attaining a tenured professorship at a university. But even in industry, there are no guarantees. I'm in the US. I got my bachelor's at a top undergrad school and my PhD at a top research university. I then landed an R&D position at a top industrial lab. But after a relatively short 8 years (relative to 4 yrs undergrad plus 7 yrs grad), there was an industry-wide meltdown. I was then faced with a "Should I stay, or should I go?" scenario of my own. If I wanted to stay in the field I loved, I would need to uproot my family and move (or else split my family). If I wanted to keep my family intact and not relocate, I would need to switch fields. I chose to switch fields. And I switched fields several more times during my career in response to corporate and industry-wide "business conditions".

* So back to you. Suppose you spend the next 10+ yrs to attain a PhD in Physics, and you succeed. Now suppose you then spend several more years as a postdoc, aspiring for a career as a university professor, but don't actually land a position? Or suppose instead you land a job as an industrial physicist, but several years in are faced with an industry-wide downsizing? Will you be prepared to say, "Hey it was fun while it lasted," and move on to Plan X? Or will you be devastated and paralyzed?

 

[Pirx]

OP: As long as you're planning to complete a second bachelor's in physics, your first bachelor's in aerospace engineering shouldn't hurt you. In fact, if you are planning on pursuing a PhD program in experimental physics, the engineering background should be advantageous, especially if your project involves design and construction of novel apparatus.

Starting the PhD program a few years later per se should not be detrimental. As one isolated data point, among the students in my entering PhD physics program in the US was a woman who had completed her bachelor's in physics ~7 yrs earlier. She had then put her career plans on hold to become a full-time mommy to two kids. She completed her PhD program, became a university professor, and then later became a high-level director of a national lab (among other positions). So it can be done.

Whether you should pursue a PhD in physics depends on your abilities and the opportunities available to you in your country (I see that you've started a new thread on that subject). My experience is limited to the US. Here is my standing caveat for posters in your scenario:

First of all, thanks for an extensive answer.
(Sorry if it comes across as intrusive but hour academic path sounds very interesting and, needless to say, extremely impressive. If you don't mind me asking, are there there any threads where you touch more on your experience with academia, industry, field switching, etc.?)

I'm aware (to my own dismay) that only a marginal amount of physics PhDs get to work in their area of expertise, which is honestly the main thing that ultimately held me back from choosing it. But also even getting to the PhD / post-doc part seems a bit like a too good to be true scenario (well, maybe with the exception of suboptimal salary; but it's not overly important to me). I can leave the tenured professor positions to actual prodigies without a qualm.

It's the horror stories of doing minimum wage after a dozen of years of hard intellectual work that make me squeamish. I've heard that certain areas of physics are better in terms of a "safety hatch" because they either relate to industry-applicable topics (ie. condensed matter and semiconductors) or utilize skills transferable to industry. I can think of astrophysics in relation to the latter, also maybe HEP and particle physics? But I don't know how much of it is hearsay.

 

[CrysPhys]

However, I've quietly dreamed of doing physics for a living since early high school.

This is a red flag. One of my previous posts:

If we're talking about the US, a student will typically apply for a PhD program in physics upon completion of a bachelor's in physics. They will then spend 6+ yrs avg to attain a PhD in physics. That's a hefty commitment. Before making such a commitment, they should have a good reason for doing so. As I mentioned several times before, enrolling in a physics PhD program to "find yourself" is not a good reason. Neither is "Since I was a young lad, I've always had a passion for physics."

<<Emphasis added.>> Especially for you and others in the same scenario ("I want to walk away from my current course of study or current career to pursue my dream job as a research physicist."), you need more than some abstract, idealized, romanticized vision of physics. What particular, concrete problems ignite your passion?

It's the horror stories of doing minimum wage after a dozen of years of hard intellectual work that make me squeamish. I've heard that certain areas of physics are better in terms of a "safety hatch" because they either relate to industry-applicable topics (ie. condensed matter and semiconductors) or utilize skills transferable to industry. I can think of astrophysics in relation to the latter, also maybe HEP and particle physics? But I don't know how much of it is hearsay.

This is another red flag. Another one of my previous posts:

I would say pick the research area that you love in and of itself. Consider the PhD program as a standalone phase of your life, and not necessarily as a means to an end.

ETA: By "research area" I mean a relatively broad research area, such as experimental solid-state physics vs theoretical high-energy-particle physics, not a narrow topic for a thesis. If the student responds, "I don't have a research area that I love in and of itself. I want your advice on what research area will maximize my chances of landing a job when I graduate and maintaining a job for X decades to come," I would reply, "Don't pursue a PhD in physics."

And what if the student does have specific research areas at heart, but they don't align with what is (best anyone can tell) marketable? Should a student pursue experimental solid-state physics because it is likely to be more marketable than theoretical high-energy-particle physics, if the student has a burning passion for theoretical high-energy-particle physics and little interest (or aptitude) in experimental solid-state physics?

Job markets can invert (hot to cold or cold to hot) in as short a period as a year or two. Who knows what the job market will be when you are ready to enter it? And who knows how often the job market will change in the decades to follow? A PhD is not like an MD. A PhD is not a guarantee of a career; it does not need to be a means to an end; it can be an end in itself. So you need to pick a research field that ignites your passion; your PhD research needs to stand on its own ... because it might not lead to a long-term career. With respect to options for Plan B, you need to be flexible and adaptable to the job market. If you complete a rigorous PhD physics program, you will be armed with a diverse and robust set of skills and experiences (there will be exceptions, of course). What will hold you back is your willingness (or lack thereof) to apply this set to jobs that are in demand but that you do not consider worthy or sexy.

 

[Pirx]

This is a red flag. One of my previous posts:



<<Emphasis added.>> Especially for you and others in the same scenario ("I want to walk away from my current course of study or current career to pursue my dream job as a research physicist."), you need more than some abstract, idealized, romanticized vision of physics. What particular, concrete problems ignite your passion?



This is another red flag. Another one of my previous posts:



Job markets can invert (hot to cold or cold to hot) in as short a period as a year or two. Who knows what the job market will be when you are ready to enter it? And who knows how often the job market will change in the decades to follow? A PhD is not like an MD. A PhD is not a guarantee of a career; it does not need to be a means to an end; it can be an end in itself. So you need to pick a research field that ignites your passion; your PhD research needs to stand on its own ... because it might not lead to a long-term career. With respect to options for Plan B, you need to be flexible and adaptable to the job market. If you complete a rigorous PhD physics program, you will be armed with a diverse and robust set of skills and experiences (there will be exceptions, of course). What will hold you back is your willingness (or lack thereof) to apply this set to jobs that are in demand but that you do not consider worthy or sexy.

I agree that the sentence about high-school sounds red-flaggy. I've wanted to keep things brief in relation to pre-undergrad decisions.
I don't believe people should go into physics because they were good at it or read lots of casual books on the topic in HS.

I find it hard to speak on what problems in particular agitate me the most. In fact, I don't think it matters at all what fields the student likes at the beginning of his/her higher education because so much new material is going to be introduced. Isn't it a running joke that evey first-year is going to discover quantum gravity or become a string theorist? I also don't really think there's something innately wrong in trying to take future job prospects into consideration when choosing fields of specialization. Sure, if someone is dead-set on astrophysics or other specific area, I don't think he/she should go into a completely different field just to be "on the safe side" (whatever that might entail). That would be a recipe for disaster. But very early into one's education people are usually very versatile, and only a small minority knows their calling from the very beginning. I think you just grow to love what you apply yourself to and feel it "click".

I do have a nebulous idea of what I like in the sort of physics that happens after HS, though. I've dipped my toes in undergrad physics in my free time a little bit, and know that I'm drawn to topics that rely heavily on mathematical concepts (ie. I enjoyed statmech and classical mechanics way more than thermal physics). My plan was to self-teach myself most of undergrad physics anyway (or at least the Big Four: statmech, classical mechanics, electromagnetism and quantum) but the level of mathematics is slowing me down gravely. I also enjoy working on computational problems, although a little less than just purely analytical ones. Topics related to crystal lattices, their defects and such have captured my interest after I took an intro materials science class as an engineering major. This and optics are, I think, the most attractive areas of physics for me. But it's obviously a very shallow interest since I cannot understand textbooks directed at physicists or materials scientists. I'm currently working on self-teaching myself more advanced linear algebra to do QM. (Astronomy and orbital mechanics are a separate thing from physics to me, so I won't go into that). I don't even count things like teenage interest in quantum and astrophysics because it's nearly universal (never saw the appeal in string theory, though).

I don't have expectations of landing a permament job in academia because life can throw you a curve ball any time. Hopes, indeed, but that's different. I do plan to pursue a PhD regardless of the field I'm going to because it opens up research positions, which have always attracted me more than just polishing off already existing products invented by others. Industry is a backup plan. Then, rebranding. We all have to work, after all.

Even if I ultimately failed at becoming a researcher, I'd be happy to at least have completed a PhD and having had my fun while it lasted.

 

[CrysPhys]

Well, to echo the sentiments in Reply #13, you have everything worked out and have made your decision. I have nothing further to add. Over and out.

 

[Muu9]

If you're able to find the subjects studied by those with PhDs in Aerospace Engineering interesting, and you only issue is with the pedagogy of the BE, have you thought about potentially moving on to get your master's/PhD in Aerospace Engineering? The level of teaching of these bachelor courses might be something you're able to bear (self-teaching the theoretical details) until you reach graduate school where everyone is as motivated in the math/theory as you are. Also, I'm not sure how doable research as an undergrad is, but the applied nature of AE research might make is more accessible than theoretical physics.